Income Tax : Judicial rulings clarify that satisfaction for initiating action against other persons in search cases must be recorded promptly. ...
Income Tax : Courts are divided on whether the DRP-specific deadline under Section 144C(13) overrides the general assessment time bar in Sectio...
Income Tax : CBDT issues new compounding guidelines simplifying process, eligibility, charges, and procedures under the Income-tax Act from Oct...
Income Tax : A summary of prosecution offences under Chapter XXII of the Income Tax Act (Sections 275A to 280), detailing the rigorous imprison...
Income Tax : CBDT's new Compounding of Offence Guidelines (2024) simplify the process but maintain strict compliance rules. Learn about eligibi...
Income Tax : Learn about the new block assessment provisions for cases involving searches under section 132 and requisitions under section 132A...
Income Tax : The ITAT Delhi upheld deletion of a Rs.6 crore addition under Section 68 after finding that the share sale transactions were prope...
Income Tax : Delhi ITAT held that a single consolidated satisfaction note covering multiple assessment years without identifying year-wise incr...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that the Assessing Officer wrongly invoked Section 143(3) despite the case being covered under the block assess...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled that recording satisfaction under Section 153C is not a mechanical exercise and must clearly establish the rele...
Income Tax : The Tribunal ruled in favour of the assessee after noting that audited financials, PAN, bank statements, ITRs, confirmations, and ...
Income Tax : Availability of Miscellaneous Functionalities related to ‘Selection of Case of Search Year’ and ‘Relevant Search...
We find that, the AO accepts that the assessee is an infrastructure developer. But we look into the main objection of the AO that being a developer by itself is not enough to avail the deduction, but the assessee should have maintained, operated and handed it back to the government.
No material is produced before us to prove that the AO in the case of person searched was satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or things or books accounts or documents seized or requisitioned belongs to or belong to a person other than the person referred to in sec. 153A. No material is produced before us to show if any satisfaction was recorded by the AO in that case that the seized material belongs to any person other than the person with respect to whom search was made u/s 132 of the Act.
From the perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that after the assessment order is passed, the assessee is entitled not only for the refund but also simple interest on the amount as has been provided under sub-section 4(a) and (b) of the Act. Sub-section 4(b) provides that such interest shall run from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of one hundred and twenty days from the date on which the last of the authorisations for search under section 132 was executed to the date of completion of the assessment.
From a bare reading of section 139 and 153A , it is evident that the provisions of section 271F are attracted when a person is required to furnish the return in accordance with section 139(1) or by provisos of that section. Section 153A starts with non-obstante clause and the purpose is only to specify separate time limit for filing the return. The only distinction in section 153A is that the AO is required to issue notice to the assessee requiring him to furnish the return within such period, as may be specified in notice, but otherwise the provisions of the Act have been made applicable accordingly, as if such return were a return required to be furnished u/s. 139. Therefore, all the consequences following for failure to file the return u/s.139 will follow u/s.153A also. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of ld CIT (A) to interfere and, accordingly, uphold the same.
Supreme Court dismisses revenue appeal confirming ITAT stand on joint names issue. Allahabad High Court judgment explained. #IncomeTax #LegalNews
Entire scheme of the eligibility, powers and procedure before the settlement commission was overhauled by Finance Act, 2007, w.e.f. 1.6.2007. In the overhauled scheme, search / requisition cases covered by the provisions of section 153A of the Act were not allowed to take benefit of the settlement commission. It also excluded the cases of related persons whose documents were seized as provided for in Section 153C of the Act.
